I would like some advice from others too!!
I've been struggling with PR and PF recently as well. I plan on drilling them untimed.
What I've been trying work on for PF is to make sure I detect the flaw in the stimulus before rushing into the answer…
Please correct me if I misunderstood you.
All members of M are also O members, but not vice versa.
Yes, it is true that the O set contains M members. M members are completely subsumed under the O set. But that does not make O the SC and M the NC.
…
For example:
All strawberries (S) are red (R).
The "strawberries" set cannot be the bigger set than the "red" set.
If there are five strawberries, there cannot be four red things. There must be at least five red things because all strawberries a…
Hi. I'm unsure what you mean by "whatever is left should fit in the remaining slot"
In Q2 A2, you wrote:
Each and every member of Q is omnipotent" but are all omnipotent set members members of Q ? Obviously, not necessarily
If it is not necessary…
Hi! 157 is achievable!
But it will likely take more than a few months to achieve this score. Going through the CC alone should take at least two months for materials to sink in and afterwards, you need to engage in a full PrepTest phase during whi…
Hi!
With regard to your first question about Sufficient and Necessary conditions, you shouldn't think automatically that the premises are the sufficient condition and the conclusion is the necessary condition.
Actually, the speakers/authors of ar…
The rule says:
Not T--> K
This is an "Or Rule" where you must have at least one of T or K. You have three possible scenarios with this rule.
1) T out K in
2) K out T in
3) Both T and K in
If you don't have T, you must have K. If you have T,…
Thank you for the solid analogy!
Go for the layups & short-distance shots early on= go for the low-hanging fruits first!
And we can always practice and get better at 3-pointers (level 5 questions)!
Negation of "no one" is "someone".
Usually, "Anyone" means "everyone" or "all".
So the negation of "anyone... is X" would be "some people are not...X"
But, in the context of this particular argument, "anyone" is used to mean "somebody".
"If yo…
In a Sufficent Assumption question, it is possible for the correct AC to be both the necessary and sufficient assumption, but I'm not sure if that's the case here.
"Influence by any other society " seems sufficient rather than necessary.
If you ne…
Hey!
This question gave me a headache.
"how well an underground rock groups recordings sell is no mark of that group's success as an underground group" does not mean the same as
"how well an underground rock groups recording sell is UNSUCCESSFUL"…
Hey,
I've found that reading the sentence/phrase that precedes the referenced part is helpful in determining the primary purpose of it. Perhaps reading what comes after it is also useful in figuring out the context.
Trap AC's often lure us by talk…
Congratulations, Daniel!!!!!!!
I completely agree with what Victoria said above. You have a heart of gold and the legal community is lucky to have you on board!!!!
@H_al1411 said:
Hey everyone I need some advice on how to Fool Proof LR, I know it is for LG but I really want to improve on this section. Also should I fool proof LR and LG at the same time? I want to forsure fool proof before I start taking …
@"Cant Get Right" Hi Josh! I was solving PT36 Game 4, which contains two CBF questions. These questions actually don't contain MBF as correct answers (CBF AC's are correct!), but as I was reviewing the meaning of the question stem carefully, I thou…
Thank you so much Tyler and all fellow BR members! I learned so much through the session. I look forward to breaking down arguments and parsing out statements with you guys, especially the infamous point at issue questions!
@FixedDice said:
@LSATlife said:
Y is described as something that warrants X.
Warrant means sufficient so I thought it also means Y---> X.
I believe "warrant" is geared more toward necessity rather than sufficiency.…
Oops! Thanks for pointing that out ahh
It is actually PT31 S3 Q7 LR!
I read the statement as saying, 'the only thing that warrants X is Y.
X-->Y
Y is described as something that warrants X.
Warrant means sufficient so I thought it also means…
Wow! German idealism is really tough to grasp--I took a class on it a couple years ago and my brain almost fried!
From several observations, I've found that LSAT wants the test takers to differentiate between "will" and "action" (in a less complica…
@goingfor99th said:
Functionally, no. The "choosing" doesn't change much, because the person buying the desk in the second statement still has to "choose" to buy the desk if he/she does in fact buy it.
That is, unless he/she is a hard det…
@"Idil.Beshir" said:
Thank you everyone!
I’m hesitant to give advice because I realize there is so much that I don’t know at all, and what works for me might not be what works for you. For me, the biggest obstacle was learning to understa…